[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: PIDs limited to 15 significant bits
On Fri, Sep 29, 2000 at 11:44:42PM +0200, Andries Brouwer wrote:
> There are a few weaknesses that can be exploited using a wraparound.
> With 100 processes/sec that takes 497 days with a 32-bit pid
> and 5 minutes with a 16-bit pid.

Surely the estimate of 100 forks/sec is low. I get 83 forks/sec on
a 486-75 and a Python program, just as an estimate. Besides,
vulnerabilities due to PID wrap should just plain get fixed, if only
because ports to a "lesser" unix might be made.

31- or 32-bit PIDs might be a convenience, but they don't furnish security
against wraparound attacks, they just make them take a little longer to

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:38    [W:0.074 / U:0.192 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site